Jackson v. Total Relocation Services, LLC

Background

Michael L. Jackson sued Total Relocation Services, LLC, Friendly Field Technicians, LLC, Christopher Marzo, and Suzanne Noorman under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and certain provisions of the New York Labor Law. He alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to pay for all hours worked, paid wages late, failed to provide wage statements, and retaliated against him. He also alleged that workers were incorrectly treated as independent contractors and were subject to practices such as off-the-clock work and rounding shifts down.

Jackson moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. He proposed a group covering current and former people who worked for the defendants as non-exempt IT Hardware Technicians or similarly situated employees, regardless of job title, in New York from May 17, 2017, to the present. He also requested court-authorized notices, a 60-day opt-in period, workplace posting, contact information for potential participants, and tolling of the statute of limitations.

Conditional certification

The court explained that conditional certification is the first, preliminary stage of an FLSA collective action. At this stage, a plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that the plaintiff and other workers were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. The court does not decide the ultimate merits, resolve factual disputes, or make credibility determinations at this stage.

The court found that Jackson met this low burden. His allegations and the declarations submitted by him and other former employees described similar IT Hardware Technician duties, compensation, hours, and alleged failures to pay overtime or all hours worked. The court also found that Jackson sufficiently alleged that Total Relocation Services and Friendly Field Technicians operated as a single employer for purposes of conditional certification. The allegations included common ownership or management, control over hiring, firing, schedules, and pay, and shared manuals, letterhead, and payroll operations.

The court limited the proposed collective in two ways. First, it excluded employees outside the IT Hardware Technician function because Jackson had not provided enough information to show that the alleged common policies extended to other job categories. Second, it changed the start date from May 17, 2017, to May 17, 2020, because the FLSA generally provides a two-year limitations period, or three years for a willful violation, rather than the longer period Jackson proposed under New York law.

The conditionally certified collective consists of all current and former persons who worked for the defendants, whether as employees or independent contractors, as non-exempt IT Hardware Technicians and worked in New York from May 17, 2020, to the present. Conditional certification did not decide whether the defendants actually violated the law or whether all potential participants are ultimately similarly situated. The court noted that the collective could later be decertified after notice and discovery if the participants were not similarly situated.

Notices and pre-certification discovery

The parties disagreed about the wording of the proposed notices. The court ordered them to meet and confer. Jackson must file revised proposed notices within 14 days of the opinion, and the defendants may file objections within seven days after that submission. After the court approves the revised notices, the defendants must post the court-authorized notice and consent-to-join form in a conspicuous location where potential collective members congregate.

The court granted Jackson’s request for pre-certification discovery in part. The defendants must provide, in a computer-readable format and within 14 days, the names, titles, compensation rates, last known mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and employment dates of employees within the certified collective and its time period. The court did not authorize production of Social Security numbers. It stated that Jackson could renew that request if the other information proved insufficient to contact some potential participants.

Equitable tolling and disposition

Jackson asked the court to pause the statute of limitations for potential participants from the filing of his motion until notice could be sent. The court denied without prejudice that request, finding that broad tolling was premature. It stated that potential participants could seek tolling individually if needed at a later stage.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Jackson’s motion. It conditionally certified the narrowed collective, ordered the parties to meet and confer about the notices, granted in part the request for pre-certification discovery, and denied without prejudice the request for equitable tolling. The court did not decide the ultimate wage-and-hour claims.